User talk:Xiong/Chinatalk

Conversation about everything China
Xiong, you've previously made a quite lengthy comment on the discussion of Chinese stuff on the village pump. Perhaps you'd care to weigh in here Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29 it desperately needs people from outside Asia to weigh in. SchmuckyTheCat 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And I'm so sorry I did. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 00:40, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)


 * I'm sure when Schmucky asked you to "weigh in" he did not mean that you should move an ongoing discussion to the talk page of a nonexistant article.


 * I understand your frustration, which is shared by everyone. But I'd like to point out that:


 * Your proposal is likely going to get no support from anyone
 * It completely flies in the face of NPOV policy
 * If enforced, it will force most serious Chinese contributors out of Wikipedia and bring in zealous territory-grab-&-frivolous-vfd anons

-- ran (talk) 05:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ran, and I don't share the pessimism that I'm reading in Xiong's rationale for his restructuring. If there is one non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, it's the NPOV policy, which ensures that all PsOV (provided they are encyclopedic) will get heard. In other words we don't need to resolve the fundamental issues at all, just present them accurately, fairly, and in a neutral way. That's the beauty of it. There are many many other articles on controversial topics for which the NPOV approach has worked, why shouldn't it work here? Granted, the occasional line has been crossed and toes have been stepped on, but what else is new? That's not an intrinsic flaw of this debate. Regarding the substance of Xiong's proposal, if enacted I think it could lead to a land grab: since it would be "first use" that counts, this would be an incentive to create articles in order to dictate usage. Article squatting. If you think a different approach is needed, I'd be in favor of a serious attempt at mediation: everyone should lay out what their preferred choice would be, what compromises they can live with, etc., then try to find some common ground. One constructive group exercise would be to collectively write up a statement of the debate that would lay out all the issues and relevant background to an impartial mediator. That in my opinion would have a much better chance of moving us toward consensus than unilaterally trying to enforce a solution that is not supported by consensus. --MarkSweep 06:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Very well said, Mark. -- ran (talk) 07:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Duke it out in there, not all over WP. -- Duke what out? Every debate is specifically related to the topic at hand. Do you think it's even remotely feasible or sensible to lump all China-related debates into one single talk page?! -- ran (talk) 05:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it neither feasible nor desirable to lump all China-related debates into one single talk page. I think it essential to lump all debate on the single topic of what we will force everybody to call China, etc. into one page, and I shall do so. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 06:14, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * There is already a page for that. It is called: Wikipedia talk: Naming conventions (Chinese). If you want, you can start a subpage of it. -- ran (talk) 06:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just did. The subpage is now here. Move it if you like. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 00:44, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)


 * You seriously should wait for at least some semblance of consensus before doing any more of your earthshattering moves. -- ran (talk) 05:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * There will never be consensus on this issue. Continued debate raging across WP is destructive to the community. This is my settlement. When you call Mom because you can't play nice, you may not like the settlement. That's as it should be. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 05:57, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I think it belongs at the talk page Naming conventions (Chinese) since the conventions have a relevant political NPOV section. That's a general utility page that fits the purpose... --Jiang 05:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There are other, better purposes for Naming conventions (Chinese) -- issues the discussion of which might actually come to a conclusion. Pick another name, please. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 05:57, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

You may also want to join/add to watchlist China-related topics notice board if you havent already, seeing that you're interested in the subject. --Jiang 05:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see my user page. Having assumed the burden of this settlement, I recuse myself from all other discussion or interest in all things Chinese. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 05:57, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

''When you call Mom because you can't play nice, you may not like the settlement. That's as it should be.'' Man, am I glad that you aren't our Mom. If you were, you could have destroyed Wikipedia at the stroke of midnight an hour ago.

Do you seriously think your proposal is going to work, Xiong? Let's be logical. If your proposal is seriously enforced, what do you think will happen? -- ran (talk) 06:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a proposal; it's a settlement. So long as I'm on this board, this is how it will be.


 * To answer your question: I think the debate will be confined to a single page. I think some of us will spend a lot of energy on the debate; some of us will be able to spend more time in more productive work.


 * Please be aware that I have only a limited fund of patience to be expended in talking about this settlement. Uncivil comments consume that patience rapidly. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 06:19, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

... Okay, so let's say we stop people from moving all China-related pages. What about the content of existing pages, like Republic of China? Can people change those? What do you think will happen after?

I'll answer that for you. If people are allowed to change those pages, then the edit wars will continue. You would have accomplished precisely nothing.

If people aren't allowed to change those, POV-pushers will take advantage of this and add as many outrageous statements as possible to all China related pages. Serious contributors will be disgusted, and leave. If this precedent is copied across Wikipedia, Wikipedia will be destroyed.

Also, you are not our dictator. You are not above the conventions of consensus and NPOV. So stop pretending that you are. -- ran (talk) 06:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't fix everything, nor shall I try. I do not imagine I shall extinguish every holy war on the net, in WP, or even among the Chinese in WP. I do declare my intention to limit the disruption. That is as far as I go. If you want to see exactly what the settlement covers, please examine it at: User:Xiong/Template:Xiongxiong. You are free to edit outrageous statements: merely forbidden to change the names employed, or debate the names employed in any forum other than the designated area.


 * Consensus is meaningless in the middle of a battlefield. NPOV is best upheld by this settlement; it permits all editors to express their individual biases. There is no single neutral POV to protect or encourage. There is much to be said about China and all things Chinese, upon which most editors can form a consensus. I shall provide an atmosphere within which that consensus may form, and Good Work be done on China-related articles of all kinds.


 * I am not your dictator. I am the visiting fireman; your house is on fire. You need help; you asked for it; you got it. Someone with a larger portfolio should long ago have stepped in; since the fire is still there, and still threatens us all, Somebody has to do Something. That Somebody, today, is me; and that Something, today, is the settlement.


 * Now, I'm sorry to say, my patience is temporarily exhausted. If you wish to continue this discussion of the settlement, you are welcome to do so in a less confrontational and more constructive tone. Be assured that I will consider all constructive comments. Thank you for your comments. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 06:57, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

There is no fire. If this is a fire, then half of Wikipedia is on fire. Israel and Palestine related articles are on fire. Iraq related articles are on fire. Oder-Neisse line related articles are on fire. Diaoyu / Senkaku articles are on fire. Dokdo / Takeshima articles are on fire. Tibet and Xinjiang articles are on fire. Sino-Japanese war / Korean colonial period articles are on fire. Wikipedia should have gone up in flames a long time ago.

Nor did we call for a fireman. We did not call for a fireman whose only solution is to tear down the house before the imaginary fire burns it up. Nor would we consider such a person a fireman.

You are not a fireman. You are a resident of the house, which is not on fire. To cry fire and suggest that the house be torn down to control it does not help your credibility or help you make friends. -- ran (talk) 07:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jiang
Please propose to do something and gain consensus before you actually do it. This should be especially true if you are being reverted because there's no way you can win a revert war against several users.

Do not create a bunch of personal templates and move discussion around without consensus because you will be simply reverted. Please slow down and discuss. I admire you intent to solve this, but this should not be the way to do it. It just gets everyone inflamed and you discredited. --Jiang 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Curps
Also, Talk:PRC vs ROC has been moved to User:Xiong/Talk:PRC vs ROC, and should not be moved back. There is no article at PRC vs ROC. -- Curps 08:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, please do not repeat your disruption at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). You cannot unilaterally impose any "settlement" or "last word" of the sort you describe at User:Xiong/xiongxiong, and you should not delete other people's comments on that talk page or at Village pump (policy). Further actions of this sort could be interpreted as vandalism and result in you being blocked temporarily. -- Curps 09:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The usual mechanisms for resolving disputes at Wikipedia are described at Dispute resolution. Useful information can also be found at Policies and guidelines.

Finally, please be aware of the Three revert rule. -- Curps 09:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update
The designated debate pit is now on the flip side of this page: User:Xiong/Chinatalk. Work it out there, if you can. If you speak to me here in a civil tone, I will do my best to answer you directly and politely. If you call me a stinking vandal, porn king, book burner, sock puppet, and a brash, ignorant newbie, but you take responsibility for confining the debate to some reasonable area, and forbid it from polluting the entire project, I will not only accept your criticism, I will shine your shoes for a month. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 00:40, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Take a breath
I noticed your comment at village pump. The debate has been going around for months, and I guess it will not likely be settled in next three five weeks or so. Arbitration is perhaps necessary, tho I am not sure when it would be the right time to do so. If you're getting uncomfortable with all these long debates, do take a nice break. The gap between two sides of opinion isn't a narrow one, and both produce sound arguments.

By the way I have to say I was impressed by your in-depth observation, as mentioned at Village pump#NPOV &rarr; China. I am pretty sure Wikipedia needs you. &mdash; Instantnood 16:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Xiong,

I'm going to put it this way. Your proposal threatened to destroy everything that the Chinese participants of Wikipedia, of whatever political opinion, have worked for so far.

Yes, there have been arguments, and some of them were long, or bitter. But consensus has been reached before. Compromises have been reached before. In fact, I would go on to say that Wikipedia has the most politically correct, most precise, most factual, and most neutral definition and description of China-related terms anywhere on the internet, if not in the entire history of the world. Where else are you going to find an article of the Republic of China or Mao Zedong or Tibet, for example, that explains what everyone thinks and why they think this way, all in unemotional and neutral language? The talk pages may be messy and drawn out, but what counts are the articles themselves -- and those are works of art. These arguments that you hate so much do achieve something. Wikipedia itself is proof and testament.

If your "settlement" is enforced, then all of that will be destroyed. Wikipedia will become a war zone, with people grabbing article titles most favourable to themselves. It will become precisely what you're trying to prevent -- a battleground for political zealots. If your settlement is enforced across the board, Wikipedia will be destroyed.

That's my two cents. -- ran (talk) 19:18, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The problem of NPOV
Hi xiong,

I understand that you've been feeling frustrated lately about NPOV, especially difficulties involved in implementing it in extremely controversial issues.

So I thought you might want to see this: People's Republic of China. If you dig back through the talk archives, you'll find a huge debate about the merits of Mao's policies. The history section that you see is the result of those debates.

As of now, the section is verbose and misses a lot things (Korean War, etc.). It can probably be improved. But I personally consider it to be a genuinely successful attempt at containing and describing a highly polarized issue without taking sides.

Please tell me what you think! Thanks. -- ran (talk) 18:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * That wasn't even related to the PRC / ROC debate! I was trying to discuss the problem of NPOV in general with you, in a friendly and constructive manner, and was merely using the PRC article as an example! I could have used any NPOVized Wikipedia article as an example!


 * That's it, I give up. It is clear that you have no willingness whatsoever to enter into discussions or even read what other people post. Have a nice day. -- ran (talk) 15:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that you have no willingness whatsoever to enter into discussions or even read what other people post. -- If you say, "discussions about discussing how to discuss China", then you are absolutely correct. I'm glad you are catching on.

There is great merit in discussing China, and perhaps some merit in discussing how to discuss China. I find no merit whatsoever in discussing how to discuss how to discuss China. But you are welcome to do so on User:Xiong/Chinatalk.

And if you feel absolutely compelled to discuss how to discuss how to discuss how to discuss China, there is a place for that, too: User talk:Xiong/Chinatalk. Thank you for respecting that. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 02:45, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)